Mostly agree with that, Mooro, although I thought the triallists did okay until they tired. What Smith burbled when Beechers gave the ball away was "What was that?", which I think was appropriate in the circumstances.
Don't forget to post that url on here.
Youth Watch
Great reports here and on the main page - thanks guys, and keep it going!
Re: Grebis' missed chances, how many were shots on target that were saved/defended, and how many were off? Because the SOT column for the U's has been the main reason for the poor run recently, and given that Luton reserves can probably field a better keeper than most Conference first teams, do you think he's worth a second shot in the first team?
Re: Grebis' missed chances, how many were shots on target that were saved/defended, and how many were off? Because the SOT column for the U's has been the main reason for the poor run recently, and given that Luton reserves can probably field a better keeper than most Conference first teams, do you think he's worth a second shot in the first team?
As far as I can remember, two of Grebis's efforts were on target (the two 1 v 1s), one was a shot narrowly wide, and the others were horrible misconnections. I'd be happy to see Grebis in the first team ahead of Duffy one thing Grebo does that Duffy doesn't is chase the ball, and defend from the front. His goalscoring needs to improve (obviously), and he needs to be given the opportunity to form a partnership with someone (Yemi or Bash), but I certainly think he's worth persevering with.
Less sure about Robinson, to be honest. He does nice things (like the header that laid on Yemi for the shot against Rushden), but too often he lumbers around waiting for the ball. I think he has a better footballing brain than Duffers, but he hasn't shown himself capable of hitting the target, or even looking for the target. Having said that, it was his efforts that won us a couple of pens before he was injured.
Less sure about Robinson, to be honest. He does nice things (like the header that laid on Yemi for the shot against Rushden), but too often he lumbers around waiting for the ball. I think he has a better footballing brain than Duffers, but he hasn't shown himself capable of hitting the target, or even looking for the target. Having said that, it was his efforts that won us a couple of pens before he was injured.
-
Kernow Yellow
- Grumpy old git
- Posts: 3076
- Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 5:16 pm
Re:
Here we go again."boris" wrote: I'd be happy to see Grebis in the first team ahead of Duffy
You'd rather we pick a player who hasn't looked like scoring at all in 3 games, ahead of a player who scored twice and hit the woodwork at least once in those same games?
I thought better of you Boris.
Boris, is this Foster chap we've just signed the useless lump that was at fault for the goal vrs Luton, or the other CB who moved into midfield after half-time? I seem to remember there was some confusion on the night as to which trialist was which
BTW - Didnt see you this cos the missus was ill, rather than me still thinking the game was on the Thursday (altho I still think the original text message said it was).
From your review you pick out Gunn again (who seems to be coming on leaps and bounds recently) but have little to say for the others, so a couple of questions if you don't mind...
Yours and the clubsite reviews imply Beechers and Anderson couldnt get into the game - was that the formation to blame or were they merely as peripheral Marvin had been the previous week?
Given that the entire back four were under 20, was it just inexperience that led to the goal count in the end or were any better or worse than each other?
Can I presume Kennett was largely annonymous again?
BTW - Didnt see you this cos the missus was ill, rather than me still thinking the game was on the Thursday (altho I still think the original text message said it was).
From your review you pick out Gunn again (who seems to be coming on leaps and bounds recently) but have little to say for the others, so a couple of questions if you don't mind...
Yours and the clubsite reviews imply Beechers and Anderson couldnt get into the game - was that the formation to blame or were they merely as peripheral Marvin had been the previous week?
Given that the entire back four were under 20, was it just inexperience that led to the goal count in the end or were any better or worse than each other?
Can I presume Kennett was largely annonymous again?
Mooro, Foster was the mostly decent one who moved into midfield in the second half. The useless one was the one with the Italian-sounding surname.
Yep. Gunn was inarguably the best Oxford player against Colchester. Beechers was undermined by the formation, playing between the midfield and the front two. It was noticeable that he came into the game more when he moved up front after Grebis went off, but he still struggled to make an impression. Anderson just looked a bit slight and easily out-muscled by the quite experienced Colchester defence. I think he's got another couple of seasons to go before he'll be knocking on the door of the first team. As for the goal count, yeah inexperience I suspect, plus the Colch boys were just that much stronger.
Kennet was okay - not bad, but nothing special. The midfield fell apart though after Pettefer went off.
Yep. Gunn was inarguably the best Oxford player against Colchester. Beechers was undermined by the formation, playing between the midfield and the front two. It was noticeable that he came into the game more when he moved up front after Grebis went off, but he still struggled to make an impression. Anderson just looked a bit slight and easily out-muscled by the quite experienced Colchester defence. I think he's got another couple of seasons to go before he'll be knocking on the door of the first team. As for the goal count, yeah inexperience I suspect, plus the Colch boys were just that much stronger.
Kennet was okay - not bad, but nothing special. The midfield fell apart though after Pettefer went off.
Boris - looking unlikely that I'll be able to get there tonight again as the missus is still laid up with the flu, so I'll have to rely on your view on how individuals get on tonight.
In particular with regard to i) how the defence line up and get on (who plays LB and could they 'do a job' in first team, Foster vrs Gunn vrs Day as backup CB, whether CW has a future here), ii) how BB gets on with a full 90 mins as a striker, and iii) whether you notice whether Kennett is playing or not.
In particular with regard to i) how the defence line up and get on (who plays LB and could they 'do a job' in first team, Foster vrs Gunn vrs Day as backup CB, whether CW has a future here), ii) how BB gets on with a full 90 mins as a striker, and iii) whether you notice whether Kennett is playing or not.
Report's now on the site.
As for your specific questions:
i) Defence was Chris Weedon (RB), Andy Gunn, Luke Foster, Matt Day (LB). Yes, I reckon Day could 'do a job' in that position. Gunn was a class above not just his defensive colleagues, but everyone else on the pitch too. Weedon was pretty poor in some respects, but that could just be down to inexperience (a few misplaced passes, too many hoofs, occasionally getting caught out of position, arguably partly responsible for Ardley's first goal).
ii) Beechers was excellent for the whole first half, and scored two peaches. He faded in the second half, and looked like he was puffing quite a bit towards the end. Not sure that he would be fit enough to last 90 mins of first-team action.
iii) Kennet had one of his better games, but still not good enough, I'm afraid.
As for your specific questions:
i) Defence was Chris Weedon (RB), Andy Gunn, Luke Foster, Matt Day (LB). Yes, I reckon Day could 'do a job' in that position. Gunn was a class above not just his defensive colleagues, but everyone else on the pitch too. Weedon was pretty poor in some respects, but that could just be down to inexperience (a few misplaced passes, too many hoofs, occasionally getting caught out of position, arguably partly responsible for Ardley's first goal).
ii) Beechers was excellent for the whole first half, and scored two peaches. He faded in the second half, and looked like he was puffing quite a bit towards the end. Not sure that he would be fit enough to last 90 mins of first-team action.
iii) Kennet had one of his better games, but still not good enough, I'm afraid.